MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through COLLECTOR, DISTRICT SIALKOT and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's Regular First Appeal and upheld the trial court's judgment decreeing a suit for specific performance against the petitioner while dismissing his suit for declaration. The core legal question concerns whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the execution of the sale agreement and receipt of consideration were sustainable and free from misreading or non-appreciation of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were well-founded, as the execution of the agreement was duly proved by marginal witnesses and registration before the Sub-Registrar. The Court affirmed that where a transaction is completed and consideration received, a finding of fraudulent execution cannot be sustained without compelling contrary evidence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined, following established precedents regarding non-interference with concurrent findings of fact.
- Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts regarding the execution of a sale agreement can be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
- Does the registration of a sale agreement and its proof through marginal witnesses suffice to establish its valid execution?
- Can a transaction be declared fraudulent when the execution of the document and receipt of sale consideration are duly proved?
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CAUDHRY, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 19th February 2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby R.F.A. Filed by petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondents Nos. 5 and 6 filed a suit against the petitioner for specific performance of the contract with regard to property details whereof were mentioned in the plaint, whereas the petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that agreement for sale is without consideration, based upon misrepresentation and that he is entitled to decree to Rs, 50,000 against the respondents Nos.5 and 6. Both the suits were consolidated by the learned Trial Court and vide a consolidated judgment and decree dated 31st October 1996 the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondents Nos.5 and 6 for specific performance and dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner. Against the said judgment decree of the trial Court petitioner preferred R.F.A. Before Lahore High Court, Lahore which has been dismissed by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that agreement Exh. P-I was not executed by the petitioner and fraudulentlyby means of it, he was deprived from his property. According to him neither the High Court nor the trial Court has examined the evidence produced by the petitioner.
4. We have heard the learned counsel and have also examined the impugned judgment carefully.
Perusal whereof indicated that the contents of the agreement Exh.P.I. Were proved by the marginal witnesses i.e, Liaqat All and Rasheed Ahmed. Besides, the document has been duly registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar. Therefore, in pursuance of such evidence no other opinion possibly can be formed except that petitioner Bashir Ahmed duly executed the same and sold his property against a sale consideration of Rs,540,000 which was paid to him at the time of execution of the agreement. It is to be noted that once a transaction has been completed in pursuance whereof document Exh. P-I was duly executed and sale consideration was also received by the petitioner, it is not possible for a Court to hold that the execution of such document is the result of fraudulent transaction.
5. Learned High Court as well as Civil Judge, after having taken into consideration the available record concurrently concluded that Exh. P-1 was duly executed by Bashir Ahmed petitioner. As there is no misreading or non-appreciation of evidence by both the Court, therefore, following the principle laid down by this Court in the judgments C reported as Haji Rana Muhammad Shabbir Ahmed Khan v. Government of Punjab Province, Lahore PLD 1994 SC 1 and Qadir Bakhsh and 10 others v. Kh. Nazim-ud-Din Khan and 4 others 1997 SCM R 1267, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment.
Thus, in view of above discussion, we see no force in this petition as such the' same is dismissed and leave declined.